my nagging question since Gaza

"And our side has the ability to commandeer world opinion" And Israel has the Israel Lobby. Oh, BTW: http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2009/01/a... Zionism is not some benign idea which went wrong cause of those awful Arabs. It was determined to, and did, push out of the way by force those who opposed it from the time the Zionists got there.

Gans is a fundamentally decent man who is trying to bring the resolution of the dispute into line with other international intercommunal disputes, where both sides came to a modus vivendi without having to give up elements of their national narratives they held sacred. An expert in comparative nationalism and constitutional law, he thinks the dispute is resolvable if everyone simply commits to being decent enough. And it would be, if Zionism wasn't conceived of as a desperate "lifeboat" nationalism and Hamas weren't a bunch of genocidal fanatics. Since everyone here is committed to the erasure of the State of Israel, I won't waste my time with exposing you to the arcana of Gans' decency, or the hypothetical constitutional changes on both sides that would make reconciliation possible, as described in _A Just Zionism_.

unfair != just. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel is entirely justified in moving the Palestinians off of Jewish holy land. Fine, but they don't even make an attempt at compensating them. In fact, the charitable deeds of the bleeding hearts and hand-wringers are routinely wiped off the map by Israeli ordnance. How about giving them all green cards? Then, they too, can enjoy freedom in the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the universe.

Toot your own horn much? Israel wants to be recognized as a Jewish state when no one can really say what that is. A refuge? A real-estate scam? A religious theme park? A western bridge-head on the ME? You tell us, bowtie.

I'm surprised by the vitriol to Phil's post. The premise is that Hamas should accept Israel's right to exist and if they do — as Jimmy Carter promised — it will change the entire dialogue. Thanks to Phil, Medea, Norman, and Carter, Hamas is getting a sense that the game is changing. Either they change with it or become irrelevant. Lead, follow or get out of the way. That's hil's premise. Who could disagree with that?

Hello Hussein, I'm enjoying yr new blog. You're filling a blog niche that needed filling.

Terror survivor? LOL Poor poor Jew. It's like the Holocaust all over again!

Err, mmm, isn't Zionism a lifeboat nationalism? Is HAMAS merely a bunch of genocidal fanatics? Should we look to the logic and empathy, hence the agendas, of those with such conceits? Let's see, certainly all Jews see Israel as a lifeboat. And who sees Hamas as nothing but genocidal fantatics? Not the Palestinians…..mmmmm, who could it be? Why Jews! Not all of them, but very powerful Jews… Perhaps, instead of blaming this blog's regulars for being motivated by an urge to erase the state of Israel (I urge newbies on this blog to see if this is true by reviewing the blog's archives–It is false), Eurosabra needs to take a logic pill. She could also use an empathy pill. BTW, her pen name identifies her as not living in Israel. Why is that? Why live among the evil goys?

Let's see. If I have an impulse to steal a loaf of bread because my family is starving, does the store owner or employee have an equal impulse to stop me? Should they try to stop me? Should they just hold up their hands and let me steal the bread and go? If I am an employee of the store, should I feel happy the cost of the bread is taken out of my last check, the one attached to my pink slip? How long will the shop be in business if such thefts go on? And is this fair to those who will have to pay for unemployment checks for the former shop employee? What about the creditors of the store, now failing or failed due to increasing thefts of bread and other produce? Witty?

Really? You must have strangled a number of Israelis.

I'm sure the real Hussein Ibish spends his time reading tinyurl. I guess this passes for Zionist humor.

I had a Zionist tell me yesterday that I had the moral obligation to support Israel as a Jewish state. Groan. I told him no. I only support Poland as a Catholic State. And all Polish Citizens should be forced to swear allegiance to Poland as a Catholic State or lose their citizenship. For some strange reason, he didn't think that was fair……..I guess I forget to tell him that God gave Poland to Catholic Poles….and only to Catholic Poles. Just kidding. We all know God isn't a real estate agent. Sarcasm aside, is this any dumber than most Zionist arguments.

wouldn't the biggest power move/gamechanger be for Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist, and then fully initiate a civil-rights struggle? How about the US and Israel recognizing the 2006 democratic election of Hamas? How about that for a power move and gamechanger? [Could Obama’s reaction about Iran be a precursor to his next reaction about Gaza?] All this fucking bullshit we are listening to on TV these days about the great Iranian struggle of its people to have their voices and votes count. Grand all-out vermin-infected hypocrisy coming from our side. We are liars and we should just shut-up. Furthermore, so-called journalists on TV would point this out if they weren’t cowed. I can’t even turn on the TV. If I watch or listen to any more of this sanctimonious crap, I’ll puke. But Chris Hedges said it better than I yesterday on TruthDig (and the best parts are his final paragraphs): Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090622_iran...

One should be careful not to blur the distinctions between different courses for the Palestinians. Recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State is utterly impossible, as it accepts a two-tiered citizenship in which native-born Palestinians recognize my right as an American Jew to superior status in their land. Such recognition could be seen as relinquishing the right to challenge this situation. However, recognizing the fact of the existence of Israel, in the context of a two-state solution, is something Hamas has indicated it could do, at least temoprarily (for decades). I think the most that could be asked of Palestinians, and not as a precondition but as an outcome of negotiations, is an agreement not to try to change the character of Israel through violence.

For the record, the Armenian Genocide was particularly heinous: http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armen... And had it been recognized at the time it happened, perhaps subsequent ones would not have succeeded.

"The premise is that Hamas should accept Israel's right to exist and if they do — as Jimmy Carter promised — it will change the entire dialogue." It won't change anything, and the Israelis will use it to screw the Palestinians further. Like they always have used every single concession. It's got nothing to do with Jews. It's just the way a colonial enterprise works. From the first day you get there, the plan is to dispossess and exploit the native people. It's a shame that Jews were driven to this depth of degradation, but if there's one thing we know about Jews, it's this; they are human.

Hey Phil, Don't pay too much attention to anything this bloated bag of wind Hussein Ibish has to say about anything. Nothing that he writes is worth reading. None of his opinions are worth mentioning. He's a House Arab and a bad one at that. He tries to get some sort of credibility by piggy backing off what other people write, because that's the only way he can be semi-interesting. It never works, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure him out in a flash. But take a look at what that House Arab who is chummy with Mohammad Dahlan (you've heard of him? he likes to set stuff on fire in Gaza and blame it on Hamas) has to say: Israeli Consul General, Palestinian Lobbyist Reach Mock Peace Agreement The peace process between Israelis and Arabs has stalled, but that didn’t stop Israel’s consul general in Los Angeles and a Palestinian American who actively lobbies the U.S. government on a two-state solution from reaching a mock peace agreement at a summit held downtown last week. Organized by Community Advocates, Inc. and KPCC Southern California Public Radio, whose “Airtalk” host Larry Mantle moderated the negotiations between Israeli Consul General Yaakov Dayan and Hussein Ibish, senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based American Task Force on Palestine, the event drew about 200 people to the Japanese American National Museum. It was broadcast during “Airtalk” and is available on a podcast. Dayan and Ibish agreed that there should be no new settlements in the West Bank, that Hamas can’t be included in political negotiations and on where exactly the eventual borders should be drawn. Debate resulted in understanding even on the right of return. “The point is ultimately that you do as much as you can for the refugees so that everyone can move on without violating the basic precept of the agreement, which is that you have two states, and without asking Israel to do something that sovereign states would not do,” Ibish said. “I would tell you, Hussein,” Dayan said, “for the Israelis it is sine qua non. This is a Jewish state, and whenever there is a Palestinian statement of ‘We don’t want to live under occupation’ and then saying the Palestinians want to go back and live in a Jewish state and then you’ll say that is under occupation — for the Israelis it means only one thing: that you are undermining the legitimacy of the state of Israel.” “If this is a deal-breaker,” Isbish said, “I do not think the deal should be broken on these rocks.” Not surprisingly, though, no agreement could be reached on Jerusalem. “Four out of five isn’t bad,” said David Lehrer, president of Community Advocates, adding, “It was more than the fairly common dialogue of like-minded folks who want to do good. It involved leaders grounded in the reality of the current situation and all its difficulties.” — Brad A. Greenberg, Senior Writer

part 1: The Myth of the Arab Lobby: a Reply to Ibish. I never thought that I would enter into an argument with Hussein Ibish, of all people. Many of you, really many, sent me his article in the Daily Star. But the editorial page of the Daily Star is edited by right-wing Lebanonese columnist, Michael Young, who reserves at least half of the columns of his page for Israeli or Zionist columns, and the other half for Arab neo-consrvatives like him—I apologize, he does not count himself as Arab especially as he dropped the Arabic part of his name. Reason.com is more impressed with purely Western names. So I was not surprised in the least that Young gave the platform to Ibish to attack my friend Joseph (Massad [read Joseph's excellent collection of essays on Palestine just published by Routledge under the title of The Persistance of the Palestinian Question--my favorites are chs. 2 and 4]) and me in this piece. I met Ibish once, and I was a student of his father, Yusuf Ibish, years ago. Yusuf is a formidable scholar of Islam: he knew so much about Islamic history and philosophy, and was a great raconteur, although he never cared to produce all that he knew. Hanna Batatu first told me to take a course with Ibish at the American University of Beirut: Batatu and Ibish were both students at the Harvard’s Department of Government in the 1950s. They were different ideologically, but Batatu found Ibish most interesting—and he was right.

part 3: I simply observed that he was supposed to be media expert, and suggested—given his style—that he seeks employment for Daniel Pipes, and that he would be much better working for the other side. He got angrier, and yelled more obscenities at me. And it ended there. I then read this silly piece. I must confess that it was not easy for me to write a reply; he does not evoke much emotions in me, even when I detest his political line. I notice that he now works for American Task Force on Palestine, which is an unofficial (or official?) lobbying arm of the Dahlan-Abu Mazen Mafia. Notice that Ibish began by using the word “leftist” as epithet to describe Joseph and I not knowing that Joseph and I are proud leftists, and in our circle we consider the word “liberal” as an insult like no other. The world “leftist” only insults right-wingers, Ibish and Young should understand. What is boring, and very weak, in Ibish’s writing—I did not say argumentation because he really seems incapable of sustaining an argument or following through logical causation as you can tell—is his reliance on successive adjectives and clichés: so he simply describes Joseph’s argument (and presumably mine) as: “Such arguments are deterministic, a-historical, and profoundly disempowering.” Look at that. He thinks that if he throws those words like that, he must thus sound impressive or profound. But some people—no matter how hard they try—can’t sound impressive or profound. (He reminds me of Time magazine: no matter how hard it tries, it is shallow and superficial. Time magazine can turn Hegel into a shallow cover story, with a title like: “Hegel: Why he likes Potato chips.”) Ibish began his piece by claiming that we described the Israeli lobby as “basically irrelevant” when neither Jopeph nor I ever used the term “irrelevant” to describe the Israeli lobby. In fact, I feel that Ibish proves my point: that those who wish to promote a conservative argument about US foreign policy, and those who wish to absolve US foreign policy of crimes go out of their way to attribute all US foreign policy, even US foreign policy toward Trinidad and Tobago, to “the lobby.” Joseph and I were trying to make a larger analytical point about the complicated process of US foreign policy making that certainly includes the Israeli lobby but also includes a variety of other determinants: institutional, corporate, congressional, and on occasions, public. But after reading the entire piece twice, I realized that Ibish is not really writing about the lobby or about Josph’s or my reply to Mersheimer and Walt. I re-read his piece as a fund-raising letter addressed to the various Gulf interests that now fund Arab- and Muslim-American organizations. Really. I mean, when he reaches his key point that if you downplay the role of the lobby (which neither Joseph or I did), you may undermine the raison d’etre of the various little dakakin (shops) that lobby on behalf of Arab oil dynasties. These dakakin want to perpetuate the myth of an “Arab lobby” that is only 2 years away from defeating and undermining AIPAC. Ibish’s reaches the silliest part in his conclusion: “Far from blaming "the United States," we need to roll up our sleeves, assert the full spectrum of our rights as citizens within our political system, and take responsibility for helping to shape our government's policies.” First can you Mr. Ibish employ more clichés to go, please? I mean when you say, “roll up our sleeves”, I was expecting you to refer to “pulling yourselves by the boot straps,” or perhaps to cite the famous wise American proverb: “you got to do what you got to do.” Why not cite them too. That would add eloquence to the piece, Mr. Ibish. Serious. Furthermore, if Arab-American lobbying is aimed at “shap[ing] our government’s policies”, then we have to declare that effort an abysmal failure because those groups have been in existence for decades and have nothing to show for their work except embarrassing photo opportunities and further evidence of meek subservience to polygamous princes and kings. In a recent ADC convention, the funder Al-Walid bin Talal was given an award, and the Hariri family was awarded an American flag. This is what passes as “Arab lobbying” in the mind of Ibish and his ilk. But the arguments that Joseph and I made were about a larger analysis of the making of US foreign policy, and I am not surprised that it eluded the mind of Ibish, because we also forgot to invoke clichés that would simplify ideas and make them more understandable. I should add with a cliche here, something about mixing pears and peaches, or is it beans and rice? PS At the end, Ibish raises the question: "Is Arab-American irrelevance our goal?" Oh, no. Your irrelevence is the goal, Mr. Ibish, not Arab-American's. http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/05/myth-of-ara...

Here's an innovative idea. No, a brilliant one. Bring Israel to New Jersey. Move the Kotel brick by brick to Trenton. Make Israeli Jews the majority population there and turf out 2/3 of every one else. You'll learn soon enough what a genocidal fanatic is, that's a fucking promise. Hamas is nothing compared to Americans.

Most of the DPs had no interest in settling in Palestine: Conflating Jews and Zionists.

In 1945 the crimes that had arrisen from Jewish culture and internal politics were at least as horrible as anything done to Jews in WW2: Jewish Peril: 1933 versus 2009. With such a set-off, there is simply no legitimate argument that Jews required special relief that amounted to a heinous crime against Palestinians. Zionists in Palestine then were simply racist, murderous, genocidal invaders, interlopers, thieves, and usurpers as they are today. All decent people should hate, despise, condemn, and scorn Zionists and their supporters unequivocally.

And the American MSM is ruled by Zionists. Americans are kept ignorant. Congress is a whore to Zionists. Obama cannot stop this because the American MSM won't tell the public what has and is happening.

Of course, and that is my point precisely – the only way for Hamas to appeal to Palestinians beyond their core religious-right constituency is to outbid the PLO on national matters and draw a stark contrast between their agenda of unyielding confrontation with Israel versus the PLO strategy of negotiating with Israel. Their religious and social conservatism on its own is not a path to power among most Palestinians, so that agenda has to be yoked to stridency on Palestinian nationalism. This means that Hamas cannot seriously consider recognizing Israel's right to exist, because then Palestinians would have to choose between a secular organization and an Islamist organization pursuing the same goal, and there is no way under such circumstances is that Islamists would prevail.

Ibish, Your are a joke and you know it. You are considered a joke in the West Bank, in Gaza, in Jerusalem. You don't represent the Palestinian people or their cause, you only represent your circle of traitors and collaborators. As far as telling me that I "love you" … what a silly and sexist response from a silly and sexist man. I would expect more from someone who fancies himself a spokesman for the Palestinian people or cause, but I don't think much can be expected from someone who keeps the type of company that you keep. Why don't you tell us more about your special relationship with Mohammad Dahlan? When is the last time one of your friends set a book store, music store or beauty salon on fire in Gazzeh?

amen to that MRW.

that said….now what? We've had a 9/11 and I won't say who I think did that because generally people tend to get freaked out for some reason, it just HAS to be some phantom Arab, but I will say that it sure as hell wasn't any "al-Qaeda"…our people, our nation is being wiped out ever since, Palestine is down to a grain of sand and all the rest of the atrocities committed since. Our leader is powerless against the Zionists….well hell I think they've won already unless there is still time for us people to pick up the sticks and stones and head for the castle door?